Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The issue involved herein is whether the credit distributed by M/s. Parle Biscuit Private Ltd. i.e. 'inputs service distributor' to the appellant, a contractual manufacturer/job worker, for the

- 2 -

E/85083/2020 period prior to 01.04.2016 is in accordance with Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as prevailing at the relevant time?

3. The facts leading to the filing to the instant appeal are stated in brief as follows. Parle Biscuit Private Ltd. is registered as an "inputs service distributor" under the CENVAT Rules. The confectioneries were being manufactured not only in the factories of Parle Biscuit, but also in the factories of other contractual manufactures like appellant herein. The inputs used by the contract manufacturer or the job-workers for making biscuits are supplied by the "inputs service distributor" i.e. Parle Biscuit which pays for the inputs. The credit on inputs service attributable to the final product was distributed by Parle Biscuit on pro-rata basis proportionately to its own manufacturing plants and also to the contractual manufacturing units / job-workers in accordance with applicable Rules. The appellant herein took credit of the same and utilized the same for payments of duty on the biscuits manufactured for Parle Biscuits. The department being of the view that prior to 01.04.2016 such distribution of input service credit was not permitted to the outsourced manufacturing unit/ Job workers/ Contract manufacturers under rule 7 ibid, issued show cause notice dated 18.04.2018 as to why the inadmissible Cenvat Credit of Rs.3,06,532/- for the period April, 2013 to January, 2015 distributed by input service distributor and availed by the appellant, should not be demanded and recovered and the same was confirmed by Adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 28.12.2018 alongwith appropriate rate of interest and equal penalty. On appeal filled by the appellant, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal by upholding the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 

                                    -    4 -
                                                                 E/85083/2020
Prior to 01.04.2016 also, Rule 7 ibid allows distribution of credit to 'its manufacturing units.' Here the words used are 'its manufacturing units' which, in absence of anything contrary, cannot be said to be limited to 'manufacturing unit' owned by Parle Biscuits only. The first principle of interpretation is that the words used in any statute have to be interpreted without adding any words. The term 'its manufacturing unit' has certainly a wider term to include an outside manufacturing unit or the job worker. Another thing which supports my aforesaid view is the Registration Exemption Notification issued in the year 2001 under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2001 which provides for exemption from registration of the authorised person to manufacture goods on behalf of principal manufacturer. As per the agreement between appellant and Parle Biscuits, they were receiving the raw materials from them and finished goods were processed at their factory with their won labour but Trademarks of Parle Biscuits were cleared on payment of duty to the depot of Parle Biscuits. They were receiving consideration as per the terms of agreement as 'conversion or job charges' per kg of the declared net weight. All these activities were in nature of 'job worker' as envisaged in Board's circular no. 902/22/2009-CX dated 20.10.2009. Appellant had contended that they, being a manufacturing unit of Parle Biscuits, had followed all the procedures and formalities as laid down under the relevant Act, Rules & Notification exempting from the operation of Rule 9 ibid.

5. Number of decisions have been placed on record by the learned Counsel in support of her submission that even prior to 01.04.2016 Rule 7 ibid permitted distribution of credit by the Input Service Distributor even to contract manufacturer or the job worker. I have gone through all the decisions. In my view the issue involved herein is no more res integra in view of those decisions and in particular the reference answered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the very same issue in the matter of the M/S. Krishna Food Products, M/S. Mariamma R Iyer, M/S. Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd Vs. The Additional Commissioner oF

i) 2023 (5) TMI 1129- CESTAT New Delhi ̶ M/S Ajmer Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Jaipur
ii) 2022 (10) TMI 875- CESTAT New Delhi ̶ M/s M.B. Industries Pvt. Limited, M/S Parle Biscuits Pvt. Limited, M.V. Joshi (Deceased), Mariamma Iyer, M/s M.B. Food Pvt.

Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax & Central Excise Indore (M.P)

iii) 2022 (10) TMI 1075 - CESTAT New Delhi ̶ M/S Shahi Food Product Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Udaipur- Rajasthan